Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 645 of 1981, decided on 5th July, 1981.

-- Art. 9-Question of jurisdiction or lawful authority to entertain proceeding or grant injunction-Held, can be agitated before Court whose main matter in which stay order passed and still pending and awaiting adjudication-Court, held, cannot interfere with an interim order.-[Jurisdiction-Injunction].

M. Pervaiz Akhtar for Petitioners.

This is a writ petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, whereby the petitioner requests this Court to declare the order dated 14-ti-1981 of respondent No. 1 to have been passed without lawful authority and, as such, of no legal effect.

It is further requested by the petitioner that the proceedings qua Mukhbari application and grant of stay touching the whole land beyond vended area may be declared as coram non judice.

It is stated in ground (b) of toe petition that the issue in regard to Mukhbari application is finally settled. The vendees had only succeeded ire the High Court to have their cases remanded for determination of the issue of their title as to whether they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice or not. The issue with regard to the Mukhbari application was a concluded issue till the level of the High Court and it could not be said to be issue open to the vendees to agitate afresh before the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel submits with the background stated in the writ petition that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings and pass order dated 14-6-1,9R1 (Annex :'K').

2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and find that the main matter, in which the impugned order (an interim order granted stay) has been passed, is still pending and awaiting adjudication before respondent No. 1 and the question of lack of jurisdiction or lawful authority to entertain the proceeding or grant an injunction can be agitated before him.

5. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court with an interim order while sitting in it writ jurisdiction.

I think that the impugned order which is an interim order, rather, should not have been the subject of writ petition. However, it is observed that in case the petitioner chooses to agitate the question of lack of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to entertain the proceeding pending before him, the respondent No. 1 would first decide that question and then proceed on merits, if necessary.

Needless to and that the expression of opinion if any made by this Court in the order would not prejudice the case of either party and respondent No. 1 would apply his independent mind.

With these observations the petition stands disposed of.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.